June 26, 2025 • 51 mins
There were no cameras. No livestream. Just pens, paper, and a front-row seat to one of the most closely watched federal cases in music history. In this episode, Aubrey sits down with CNN’s Elizabeth Wagmeister — the journalist who broke the Cassie Ventura surveillance tape and has been inside the courtroom every day since.
From Diddy’s body language to juror reactions, whispered allegations of “freak-offs,” and the judge’s chilling response to Diddy’s courtroom commentary, Elizabeth offers a rare, firsthand account of everything the public wasn’t allowed to see. She saw the Cassie footage before the world did — and now she’s revealing what it’s been like to stare down the mogul at the center of it all.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Amy and TJ present Aubrey O'Day covering the Didy trial. Okay,
so hey guys, we are back.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
We are now in the home stretch.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Officially, the government has rested and the defense has rested.
But let me first introduce my guest, Elizabeth wad My
search is my favorite journalist of all time, the most
epic ever. Elizabeth was the one that obtained the video
of Cassie being horrifically beat in the hallway and was
(00:37):
able to bring it to the forefront and start to
the really big discussion that has become this trial of
Diddy and his behavior. That video was for me, I'll
just speak from on my own end. That was the
first time anyone on the victim side got to breathe.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
A lot of loss, A lot of.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Things were going on during that time. That video was
the very first thing that I noticed. A majority of
my cell phone was like, oh my God, like I
can take a breath. A majority of people that write
me they felt like maybe people will believe them a
little bit, and it was the first time they had
(01:22):
ever gotten the chance to feel that in their life.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
What's so interesting about that? And you know, I'm hearing
you speak from your perspective and the perspective of other
people that you had been in touch with. But what's
so interesting, and this feels like such a long time ago,
because now we're at the tail end of the trial,
But remember that when our team at CNN, when we
broke that footage, Remember that Sean Holmes had denied everything
(01:52):
in Cassy's lawsuits. Before that, he released a statement denying
the quaims. Now, he did not get into the specifics,
but when her lossuit came out, he said that it
was entirely untrue. That's not a quote I'm paraphrasing.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Yeah, I guess him paying her off within twenty four
hours kind of killed that for all of us in
the streets.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
But here's what was so interesting. But I'm glad you
brought up that there was a settlement because you remember
that his attorney at the time, he's no longer representing him,
So he's a statement to the media at that point
saying that a settlement is in no way in an
admission of guilt. And then what do you know, we
released this video, which is obviously horrific and every which way. Yeah,
(02:32):
and it wasn't until then that we got the apologies.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Well, here's what's crazy too. Were you not tripping when
you were in court? Because another thing for everyone listening,
she's in court every day, So this is my first
chance to really get to speak with someone that is.
Of course I speak to people inside the courtroom every
day all day, but for my audience, this is the
first time we're getting in a true insider's perspective of
the room. So I wanted, I do want to spend
(02:57):
a lot of our time asking you about the way
that things are looking.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
I didn't realize that. I also, yeah, it's that I
was your first guest who's inside the koorom.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
So yeah, I mean, I mean, you know a lot
of journalists that come forward or that talk about this
are not sitting there like you are, watching every single thing.
Like even for your own company, you'll go in and
do reports on scene or you see reports on scene
when you watch any any news company. But to sit
down and like have a heart to heart with somebody
(03:27):
that's truly observing everything, it really does open your perspective
much wider. So tell me what it looked like for
him to stand up. I heard he's skinnier than normal.
There's reports about gray gums. I don't know what that
means or doesn't mean. My people have been telling me
different things, the hair being very gray.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Let's got a haircut this week.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
By the way, Oh, there was a haircut this week.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
There was a haircut this week.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Maybe that helps with the energy, because today's energy in
writing came like a bullet through my heart with the
I'm great, thank you so much. Judge, you're doing a
great job. Are you in charge of the whole jury
and room? And are you congratulating the judge on doing
a great job.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Well, the first thing is that's really important. The jury
was not present for.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
That, so the jury didn't even get to hear him
say I'm choosing not to testify.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
No, why the jury was on the lunch brace. And
then that is when, as you said, with this rule
twenty nine, that his defense filed the motion for acquittal,
they are asking the judge to say that he's not
guilty on all five charges. That happens not in the
presence of the jury. And then, as you said, the
(04:44):
judge didn't make a decision. So the judge basically that
I'm not going to rule on this right now.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
But in ninety nine percent of the times. Judges never
roll on Rule twenty nine motions. They want to leave
it up to the jury. I highly doubt it's going
to happen here.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Oh no, it would be. It would be the biggest shocked.
It would be the biggest shot and they either way.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
I wanted to say to tell me exactly how it looks,
but also I wanted to say to you before I
forget to analyze this when you come back with your response.
It felt scary, like a freight train, like a bullet
through my heart. But then when I sat with it
for a second, I thought, if I'm a judge and
you feel mighty as a judge, you go through a
whole lot of schooling, a whole lot of test taking,
(05:26):
a whole lot of mastering in order.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
To get that position.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
To have somebody who you've had to watch and freak
off and watch women testify all kinds of different things,
to have to watch that with a straight face, and
then have that same man first words over you be, Hey,
great job, You're doing a good job, Bud. I would
go home and feel some kind of way about that
type of arrogance. Did he proceed it with arrogance? Was
(05:51):
there any of that in his facial look.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
So here's what I'll tell you this judge. I've covered
a lot of trials. This judge incredibly fair and he
has complete control over the courtroom. He has control. He's
very very conscious he has control over both parties. So
he kind of chuckled when he said, you know, thank
you to him.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
But you wouldn't be able to tell if he found
it arrogant or if he found it endearing. But all
that I have to tell you is this is a drug.
As all judges should be with this.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
How long was the chuckle, Elizabeth?
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Oh, it was quick, Like this was a comment of
like okay, moving on. You know, like he responded to
be polite because of a human you have to respond
to someone.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
Now, he definitely felt the narcissism on it. It's off putting.
I feel like that's a stumble of off put that's
not like a wow. I feel so lucky that the
guy that was just in that video pissing all over
people is telling me I did a great job.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Well. Remember this is also the judge who remember when
Diddy was trying to be released on bail as he
was awaiting up three times three times that this is
a judge. That's the third time he would not release
them on bail because he agreed with executor that Diddy
was a danger to society. So I think this judge
is very focused on the facts, very focused on the evidence.
(07:07):
The testimony. Something like a polite comments is not going anywhere.
It's not the Dudeen's decision.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
Well, what's crazy is is like it's almost I know,
you know as well as I mastered as a student
of people, I would say I do that better than
singing as a student of people. I watched ditty for
many years. People are going to look at it like, oh,
he's so arrogant. He thinks he run things like how
(07:36):
I said, Wow, King Knight, you're in charge of the room.
He must just never be able to get out of
that mind state if he's the boss. It's in there.
But I read it as a tell in a negative way.
I read it as a tell a little bit. And
I really need your help tomorrow. I need you to
(07:56):
give my attorneys a little bit of the doak when
they come at you with how we're wording some of
these things.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Well, look, I mean this is it's.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Going to come down to how they word things. This
trial is not a slam dunk, unfortunately, and a lot
of people are confused by that. A lot of victims
are pissed off by that. But it's just not a
slam dunk, unfortunately, it's not.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
It's not at all. And look, sex crimes are incredibly
difficult to prosecute. It is a staggering small percentage of
how many sex crimes are even prosecuted. So the fact
that this is even in a courtroom is really unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Truly, if I take my emotions off of it, it's
just coming down to consent. And here's what I'm finding.
In a lot of the things that were submitted by
the defense. There was a lot of in writing proof
that Sean was paying for the escorts.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
There was and.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Actually, so when we talk about that, yeah, but you
just really hurt you you guys. DI stumbled a little bit.
The prosecution had a point where they came in and
were like, wait, so did you just say that he
paid you to transport somebody over across lines to commit.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
What Today's I thought that right, So let me tell
you exactly how that went down, because you know those
five charges, those racketeering sex, trafficking and transportation to engage
in prostitution. So this summary witness who's been on was
on the witness stand for three days, the prosecution's final witness,
as you know, and I won't bore you with this.
(09:31):
So basically he went through charts and charts and charts
and charts, and in the courtroom it's actually really boring.
But here people are falling asleep. But here's the thing.
It actually can prove to be one of the most
crucial witnesses because he is may be boring to listen to,
but this witness presented evidence. And now where's that evidence
going into the hands of the jury when they're in
(09:52):
the deliberation room. So when we see that there's thousands
of pages of phone records, hotel records, flight records, text messages,
big state, and those flight records are showing that male escort,
you know, number one whatever, you know.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Couple flown from here to there and here to there.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
So the moment that you're talking about, which I would
say for the prosecution.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Already woke everyone up.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
It was a nice drop moment. So on read direct.
Of course, the prosecution goes first. Then cross examination was
a day and a half. And then the prosecutor Marine Comy.
She gets up there, and this is not an exact quote,
but she looks at the witness and she said, the
exhibits that you showed, what wasn't that proof of traveling
Cabral across state lines? And then you hear objection and
(10:39):
then adjections the same, and then she asked it in
another way, and then objection sustained, and then she finally said,
didn't Cabral fly from Atlanta to Miami on a flight
paid by mister? And they said yes, yes. What is
so strategic and smart of both When the prosecution and
the defense does this, they ask questions that they know
(11:00):
there's going to be an objection to. They know it
will be sustained. It will not be in the testimony,
meaning when the jury's deliberating, they're not looking at that.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
But they don't forget it. You don't ever forget it.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
There's a praise in courtrooms which is you can't hund
ring that bell.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
By the way, a lot of court cases are just
decided by that little tiny word. You just so that
little tiny pocket. If you were to be looking at
a pie chart, it's like a little sliver of terry pie.
But really it's where a trial's guts are.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
It's been those objections that are not going to be
put on record, but you still heard as a jerky
xactly right now. I'm still the genius at that. Actually,
all A Diddy's team has been killing that this entire trial.
They've been doing a great.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Job at that.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
What you're seeing in a lot of the writing are
moments of content, But what you're hearing on the stand
is that moment of consent. Is this is actually where
I was and how I felt when I wrote this message.
That looks damning if you were to see the message
in black and white, but when you had the person
on the stand saying when I said, oh, I wanted
(12:17):
be extra dirty this time, in my head, I was
in my room knowing that he was with the other
girl and that he loved me when I did this,
and then he was going to leave me or go
off with this other person, or that he wouldn't even
spend time with me this week, and I would feel
like low self worth, no value as a person. My
whole life, my identity was attached to him. I couldn't
even literally drive a car or leave a house without
(12:39):
being reported on. And I wanted his attention, and so
I offered him up some free pictures or sex talk
or chat in order to engage him. Because he showed
these women exactly what their value was enough times to
know what it is they have to do in order
to be exciting to them. And when he loses interest,
which basicly is coercion, that's what music industry coersion looks like.
(13:04):
Baby girl, let me tell you what this is, that
baby girl line of his. Oh man, we all know
it so well, baby girl, this is what it is.
This is how your body needs to look, and this
is how you need to be if you want my attention.
This is what you need to do, if you want
a platinum album, This is what you need to do
if you want to have Daddy's money and attention. It's
(13:26):
all coercion in one way or another. It's somebody very
powerful against people that are so don't even understand the
power system.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Then you know, this is exactly why the prosecution has
spent so much time on baby oil, baby oil, baby oil,
hotel rooms, hotel rooms, you know all these things. And
I obviously follow all the commentary on TikTok on social
media everywhere, and a lot of people are saying, we
get it. He has the freak coups like why do
you keep bringing this up? But you bring up a
(13:56):
really smart point because if juror believes that this pattern,
when you have done this to multiple women, even if
the girlfriend's consensual girlfriends, if this is the behavior that
you expect from these women, and it may not seem
normal to a lot of these jurors, then they may
think exactly what you're saying, Audrey, which is wow, that
(14:17):
does feel like coercion. And even if these women in
text and in person agreed to it seem willing. I
keep saying throughout this trial, this is going to come
down to does the jury believe what they see in
evidence or do they believe what they've heard. And that's
why these things are so hard to prove because it
can be very, very confusing and complex.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
Cassie and Jane. For me, I mean, I know them both,
I've been around them both. I've seen how both operate
and maneuver. Two different, totally different human beings, two totally
different women. I know what the jurors are seeing because
I know who these people are. I know how they ask,
I know what their mannerisms are. I've studied them. I've
been around them enough to understand them. I know how
(15:01):
they come up. I don't know how they came up
in the room. But you, as somebody who is an
observer who didn't know them in a prior life and
was just observing them during this trial, if you're a
person in the jury or by standard, in the room
in general, were you able to see that these two
girls may have different intentions when they operate.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
These are two completely different women.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
And it was clear to you you wouldn't get them
mixed up, even if you were a man who doesn't
think about women and that many diverse categories potentially, I
believe this as.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Clear as day, that these are very different women. Now
is a crossover, yes, if you are maybe a more
you know, adjur with more conservative beliefs. And I'm not
saying that politically, I mean like conservative meaning that you
would never go to a sex party and that everything
you're hearing is disgusting to you. They may say, then,
(15:57):
quite frankly, sorry, I'm going on to hand it out
something that I have been thinking of, knowing these jury
behaviors and how they deliberate. There can be a fair
amount of floodshaming from these jurors on these women.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Because I want to be honest with you, I'm doing
it at home. I'm just going to straight up say
it as a woman. I don't believe in it. I
don't like it. I stand against it. I absolutely despise
any thoughts like that, and I want to be honest.
I've had thoughts like that during this trial. I don't
go and broadcast them. I have personal friends that i'll
(16:31):
express them to that I know will hold that discretion
for me to be able to get something out of
my body that is necessary for me to be able
to keep my bias in check. All the way up
until the first person got on the stand. I judged
that person too many times. And I am the first
celebrity that came forward and took up for her.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
I don't even know how many.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
Did after me.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Frankly, not many.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
When I was the first person to come in this
industry and say I back, Cassie you.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
Were I remember I was on air and I saw
what you wrote, and I read it on air.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
I read so and I had moments where I had
to where I really had to like make sure I
was standing on ten toes because there were things I saw.
There were willing days, and I was sitting all the
way up to her taking the stand, like, man, oh man,
I hope she is honest, and I hope it is
what I thought it was when I saw it. You know,
(17:27):
this is somebody that was so naive, was so young,
was so unaware of so many things, and got swept
into this world that is like is like Disneyland on
crack and the minute hands.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
You crack, right, Okay, So Ashley, this is the difference.
This is the main difference between Cassie in Vaine and
if this is from my observation in the courtroom and
if I'm a jur this is what I'm thinking. The
main difference is Caffi was nineteen years old, she was
signed a bad boy, She was given a ten record deal,
which is not something that exists, and then suddenly she's
(18:01):
on the label. She comes out with this huge hit
which only he can control, and then she's his girlfriend. Jane,
on the other hand, was not nineteen. She was a
grown woman later in life, and she was a girlfriend.
She says she was a girlfriend so whatever you want
to call it, she was not a musician. She was
(18:23):
not on his label, her career was not in his hand.
She testified to that he was pursuing her and she
was pursuing him. So very different women in very different stories.
And that's why, you know, after Jane's testimony, a lot
of our legal analysts on CNN we're saying, why was
the prosecutors called Jane she has now damaged Cassie's testimony?
Speaker 1 (18:49):
What were their responses to that? Because I felt like
they first thought about like she was on longer than Cassie.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
I don't know if she was that. It felt like
Cassie was four days and Jane was six days.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Yeah, why didn't need six days of her?
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Number one?
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Number two? Once she started getting past a certain point,
I was wondering, like, why are we continuing this? Like
it's starting to bleed into Cassie. I was feeling it's
starting to take over Cassie and Cassie's She got done,
and I was like, I am so glad that I
stood by her. She told the truth, He told the
hard truths. She told the days where she wanted things right.
(19:25):
I gleed to things she was transparent about who she
was and able to identify who that first person was.
And she's been able to grow enough to be able
to reflect on that, and I felt all of it
was like it all felt like it felt like it
sat right in my heart. In regards to defending it.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Being in the courtroom, it really resonated.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Now did Jane resonate with the jury?
Speaker 2 (19:53):
I think Jane is so complex because she's sitting there
on the stands saying that my attorney representing me today
is being paid by Shawn Combs, the homan with from
living with my kid is being I.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
Can take her up the stand right then and there.
Why does Soulcris be there?
Speaker 2 (20:07):
This was a gift to the defense and that's why
she was on the stand for so long, because the
defense had a field day with her and they weren't
going to let her off the stand. And that's the
risk you run anytime you bring on a complex witness.
But I bring up these patterns which I set a
few moments ago. Even if many people think that Jane
(20:29):
was a very problematic witness, and she certainly may prove
to be, there is an element of patterns that shows
I'm not talking about the women's conduct. I'm talking about
Shawn Combs's com.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
The exact There were patterns in they want he wants
them in costumes, he wants them moved up white, nailed
the hair a certain way, that nails a certain way.
The scenes, the scenarios with the escorts, the same patterns
of behaviors, the same setups, the constant desires and tech
messages and communications to for them to reach out to
(21:02):
these men and get dick photos and then even sexual interactions.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
With wait that, based on their testimony is a form,
a major form of control. Where they are the ones
who are now making these arrangements.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
I have a question when you watched the jury and
they had the headphones on and they were watching the
videos that you don't get to see, correct, correct, what
were the visuals? What were the face souls giving?
Speaker 2 (21:35):
I have to tell you this jury like they have
poker faces. Let me put it this way, when the
headphones are on, there's really no visible reaction from any
of the jerks. Yeah. Now it's a fool of errands.
I guess what the Jersey thinks. I know, and I
here after we'll do an interview and we'll be totally
I heard the same thing you said.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
The videos. There wasn't anything to grab, Nobody was moving
their faces like that. See anybody so horror?
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Do you remember? Because the journey didn't see the freak
out videos until really the past week before they'd only
seemed still exist. Yeah, that first time, which again was
the first time they had seen any sexually explicit content.
That was the first and only time really that I
saw one of the jurors, a woman, seemed a bit
(22:24):
horrified and shocked by it. But I think as it
goes on, A I think they could be a bit
defensitized to this, or B they know that they should
have a poker face because they know that the media
is in there and they know that we're looking at them.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Yeah, and you don't want to be sitting there having
First of all, you know, you've got to be real
careful with the facial when you're watching pornography in front
of the world.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
And also, can I tell you that is something I
thought of. I mean, they've watched a lot of footage
over the past week, Like how uncomfortable you eighteen jurors
sitting next to each other and they're all watching porn.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
I mean, listen, I've opened up porn or in my lifetime.
I'm forty one years old, that's watched one before. If
I've come across a girl getting on her knees with
her mouth open, dressed up as a dolly and heels
getting pissed men pissing in her mouth, I'm not getting
I'm immediately off of that entire site and onto something else,
and I'm having like horrified thoughts for a few days,
(23:21):
and I'm not really even gonna go near anything for
a saw hot second because it's just a little traumatizing
and a bit like just yuck.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Well, so here what's interesting. So I don't know nobody
besides the jury and the attorneys know what is in
those videos, and that's the people that were in the
courtroom that have hearing like I do.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
I did hear some m's and some groans and someone there.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
There was a day where you could hear.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
Everything smacking on I heard baby oil smacking on walls
a lot.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
Yeah, no, you could. There was one day in particular
that you could hear, and then they realized that you
could hear, so then they started turning off the mics
too many.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
There there was some moment in Cassie's testimony where I
was like dead sold and I didn't really even need
to hear anything else. I would just believe whatever she
wants to say in the charges and just go from there.
She said we were all I was dressed up like
a doll. However in the costume, he wanted my hair right,
and these hook the hooker heels he wants them wearing,
though I think of like stripper heels or whatever. You
(24:19):
have to go to a special place and get these heels.
I only know this because we had to dance in
them half the time in the girl group. But you
have to like go to custom places. You can't just
get these heels at Steve Madden and like they have
these custom heels. And She's like, we're all standing in
this fucking pool inflatable pool with like and Cassy was like,
(24:39):
I don't know. We were standing in there. We kept
asking us to get down and bathe in the in
the oil, and we were just standing there and like
we were like looking at each other, like what the
fuck are we doing? This is stupid right for me,
captivated me because it wasn't sexy, it wasn't hot, it
wasn't even on the to do a look in a
(25:01):
moment for my man.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
I love it was giving.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Everyone in the room is uncomfortable and feels this as
weird as shit. Bro with the camera, weirdo over there?
What do you want us to do? What are we doing?
Speaker 2 (25:12):
Work?
Speaker 1 (25:12):
We don't know what to do? This is weird.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Well, that's why these women have said that they felt
like they were there to live out his fantasy. I
from sitting there every day, you know, that's what the
defense has been doing. Is anyone who worked for him,
it was didn't you do great things for your career?
And how do you feel about him today? And with
the exes, you know, how do you feel about him today?
No one on the stand, not even Cassie, said I
(25:35):
hate his guts, not one person. What did she say?
She said something to the effects of God, I wish
I had the tramps in front of me, but something
to the effect of I don't hate him, It's just
not in me. And it was very powerful because she
was basically showing I don't have this is I'm I'm rehashing,
you know, her testimony in summarizing she was basically trying
(25:58):
to make the point I don't have Zandata. This is
not out of site, but I'm here to do what's
right and what happened to me is not okay. And
remember when she was asked why she was there, she
said it was to right wrong. Because even though she
is testifying that she was victimized, she also.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
Feels participated in criminal behavior. She even said it on
the stand. I didn't know what's criminal when I was
doing and then they tried stopping.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Her exactly exactly.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
Wasn't aware that every sh there was a point where
she started realizing what was criminal and what wasn't. That's
what troubled me with Jane's testimony so much is girl,
If you were confused when it was made black and
white and writing in an lawsuit, you should have unconfused yourself.
And then when you actually saw the video on CNN,
you really should have unconfused yourself. You shouldn't have been
(26:49):
looking at takes of his apology videos. If you notice that,
did you also trip out on that? Because I was
thinking of you in that moment, like you were sitting
there knowing what you had in your hands and what
was about to be shown to the world, while another
girl was sitting there combing through his apology videos trying
to figure out which one seems most since she even
(27:10):
says that he showed me a video and I felt
he didn't seem sincere in it, a different one was posted.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
I will tell you ad for me has been pretty wild,
sitting in court and putting the pieces together, because there's
a lot that even I didn't know, which is finding
out you know how shown Combs found out about that?
You know, of course, what did they say?
Speaker 1 (27:32):
How did he find out? I didn't know that part hit?
Speaker 2 (27:35):
So he was in bed with Jane in his home
in Miami and one of his sons walked in the
room and said, something has happened, And that's how he
found out that it had aired. Now what's interesting from
my standpoint.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
Is, of course you know this, that's crazy journalism on
your part, because normally things are so messy. Everybody knows
something that's wild. How did you do that?
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Can? I tell you? This is what was so interesting
to me, as all these pieces are falling into place,
and I'm kind of the puzzle is being stilled out
for the pieces that I did not know. Of course,
I did my beyond due diligence, of course, a comment
from his team when you saw a report it said
that we had made numerous attempts. But of course I
(28:21):
was not reaching out directly to Shaun Holmes, Like, that's
not what you do. He has representatives that he pays
a lot of money to speak for these things, And.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
How do you learn what those representatives ares? They don't
Like I always wonder, how do people know who my
reds are? Is? They're like a www dot com? This
is who reps this person? How do you know that?
Speaker 2 (28:47):
So there's a few things. So yes there is, but
that when you were in a scandal a crisis, you
often bring in crisis management. So like there is databases
that you can pay for to basically see who reps celebrities,
like who they are agents and publicists like all of
the news organizations you did you have to write KK
not for them. But I have made numerous attempts with
(29:11):
her for other things.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Where's she hiding? Do we know?
Speaker 2 (29:15):
We do not know? And I will have you been
in this country? So I had reached out to you.
Remember when she released that statement saying that you know
she's not involved in anything and all that I did?
Speaker 1 (29:27):
When did she release that statement? I didn't realize that.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
In March, so two months before the trial, she released
a statement that said, you know, all of the wrongdoing
that has been alledged beside my former boss, you know
I have nothing to do with egregious claims have been
made about me. Blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
Did she know that they had her phones by that
point when she made that statement, she did.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
So I reached out to offer her an interview because
I would like to hear more of her. Sorry, And
I did make contact with her attorney, who said, who's there, attorney,
it's not I don't want to say here.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
Is it's somebody that I would know? Or is it?
Is it a big name?
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Okay, it's not like one of the like celebrity like
criminal attorney Okay, because if it was, I would say it.
But they said to me that until the criminal case
is resolved, in all of the civil cases are resolved,
that she can't speak. And throughout the trial, I've reached
out more and more and more a for an interview,
but B two C comment and now they have gone
(30:24):
radio set that line.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
I think there's I think there's gonna be more indictments.
I think I'm predicting it. Now there's going to be
more indictments and she's going to be hit with the
co conspirac Remember that.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
When the first indictment came out, and there were numerous
superseding indictments. But the prosecutors had said, and I have
been reporting to the time that their investigation was still.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Ongoing, and this whole battle of everyone not understanding if
it was just him or an enterprise. I saw an enterprise.
I saw other criminals, and I saw other crimes. I
don't understand why they aren't in this case.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
And what do you mean by that? If there's anything
that you're comfortable elaborating, like, what do you mean by that?
Speaker 1 (31:08):
I saw a whole bunch of people running things, not
just the people that are taken The people that have
taken a stand are very a very minor part or
a different era, right, There's a whole lot of people.
I didn't see any of them on the stand. So
(31:30):
and to me, I said, to this person, you know,
and he would They were basically saying, like, you know,
kind of saying, this is just all girlfriends over here
in this trial area and not just slippery subject for
many reasons in many ways. And that's not just a
music industry thing. Every industry's got a sleezy boss. Every
industry's got somebody that doesn't know any better and wants
(31:52):
to advance. Like every job has forms of this going on.
And I was like, no, we need I don't.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
I don't know that we can.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
Look at this so wide and so systematically.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
First of all, they make it okay, like.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
No, no, and that's what I said. Well, I said, well,
if everybody has this and people are just paying more
attention because we're in the entertainment industry and people watch
us more and this is a huge megastar, then shouldn't
we make an example and show everybody else that this
is not allowed in the workplace. I shouldn't we be
shouldn't we then be really showing people? Because what are
(32:26):
we going to be showing them if we don't do
you know how many people fly people in sex working
jobs across state lines for their satisfy faction, Like that's
a very scary thing that you're putting out there on
the line right now for a whole lot of fucking people.
And frankly, we need to nip it in the butt.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
A lot of.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
People are not safe because a lot of people in
these settings. Clearly, as you are learning, are inebriated. You
can't make good calls on other people lives, what alone, emotional, soul, spirit,
all the other things that we are not even discussing
right now. Cassie was from the rest of her life
(33:10):
trying to clear the emotional soul side of the that
what she had to testify she did. She may be
able to vocalize it ten something years after cleansing it
from your soul is life work. We're not even discussing
that prison sentence. Everybody in this industry understands some form
(33:36):
of identifying this person as a fucking criminal. Everybody's disunderstanding
it from different lenses, depending on what decades you were in,
depending on who's around you, who you knew, what bodyguards
and assistance were in place at different times. I didn't
know Kk, but I sure it's fuck knew Capricorn, and
(33:59):
I knew friend even better. But she was found dead
on her couch after she sued Ditty for millions.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
Well, so here's what I keep telling everyone, because I'm
asked about this case. Everyone, even just like my friends
and family asked me, and I tell them what Ditty
has been accused of. Is this thick you know, like
I'm putting.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
My arms up like and Elizabeth. By the way, that's
not even big compared to what the industry is discussing, right,
very minor. That's that little tiny piece of the pie.
That's how crazy it.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
Is for me to watch this. I'm sure I'm going ahead,
I keep going. So you know, the accusations against Big
all what she denies, by the way, but the accusations
against him could like fill up you know, every room
that you're in, right, But this case is miniscule. It's
this big. It's centered around three different women. To hate
(34:55):
that former girlfriends, I hate that with so many reasons.
Why because off to the limitation.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
So it's insane to me, to me and from my
own degrees of my own story, I have things that
I still don't have answers to right. So I in
some way savee or form even though I report on
this trial, even though I'm somebody that everybody talks about
in regards this trial, makes up fake headlinds about whatever
the fuck they're going to do to me they do, right,
(35:23):
But I'm also a human in this. I have had
feelings for everybody across the board. I am somebody who
had an entire career built by this man.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
That they lose his.
Speaker 1 (35:36):
Entire life freedom.
Speaker 2 (35:41):
I don't take that not seriously.
Speaker 1 (35:45):
I don't know that I would offer a hand to
save him, But I don't have any particular feeling that
I want him to go down. I want the prosecutors
to prove their case. And I'm a bit underwhelmed in
this moment.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Being in the room is so different, and it's hard
to explain that to me. You can't explain. But the
thing is is there's a lot of grey area. Nothing
is black and white. You know all the reasons that
we just spoke about with Jane for particular. You know,
you could see that a lot of these jurors are
(36:25):
gonna not believe some of these women, right, there's a
lot of loopholes here. However, when you have sat in
the courtroom for two months and you have heard these
patterns of alleged.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
Behavior, isn't it crazy that proving consent takes this much.
You can't just be one person that says, hey, I
didn't consent to that. Imagine as one woman. You know
that we talk about how victims are so scared to
come forward.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Yet eighty plus have eighty plus.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
Against the biggest fucking star there is in the goddamn world.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
Men, ambles, men and women.
Speaker 1 (36:59):
And by the way, I even said this to a
man that's very powerful today, I would never in my
life suit this man. And I am out here with
my voice. I use it all the time. I was
fired on National TV because I was using it. I
was blacklisted, and I still used my mouthpiece. I'm somebody
that people consider have balls in this specific setting, definitely,
(37:23):
I would never go after him in any type of
legal way unless I had video from A to Z,
so I could just leave all bystanders and opinions of
everything aside and be able to prove it from A
to Z. Okay, But there are eighty people who aren't
even necessarily seen as the girl with balls like me,
that have come forward and alleged horrifying things, which has
(37:46):
happened to no other mega celebrity in my lifetime that
I have seen. It can't even be brought in. And
yet we're gonna come down to a jury of people.
We're gonna come down to knowing that they're gonna go
into a room and decide whether they believe exactly in
the consent, because this thing is going to come down
to consent.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
That's all I hear.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
Anyone saying, why did the girls come back and ask
for jobs after death? Is a consent piece all anyone
con continues to talk about it.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
No one is.
Speaker 1 (38:14):
Nobody's asking whether the baby oil is real. Nobody's asking
if they ask for guys World. Nobody's even asking if
the stripper heel part is real. Nobody's asked. It's just
did they want did they all want this? Or did
they not? And in writing you can see everybody say
they don't want it, they feel used, they feel this
and there, And in writing they can see them saying,
I want to be sexy for you tonight, daddy. You
(38:37):
can see both in writing that. What's crazy to me
is we are not moving the mark forward for any
victim in this world to feel comfortable on their own
merit to say I did not ask for this, I
did not want this this one time. I wanted it
(38:58):
twenty times, but this one time. Are these three times
I was raped or I was violated, or I didn't
want this? It doesn't matter if you did it twenty
billion times before, if one time you did not want it.
That is rape, that is violation, and that is what
(39:20):
is so hard for juris to understand. But with that
being said, that that feeling of like believing someone on
their merit and do you know how difficult it is
to go against this human.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
Remember the justice system, even if it should be and
it is designed to be, it's not about the truth.
It's about what twelve people believe.
Speaker 1 (39:42):
Correct, It's a theater. I literally said on the first
day of trial something on Twitter while it had to
go back and bookmark it, like let's see the theater begin,
Like this is it. This is going to be a
masterclass in theater. But beyond all of this, these charges
are so very big. There are so many of them,
(40:06):
so many of them that weren't even brought into this case.
But this case is the one not to miss on.
That's where the feeling of a little dissatisfaction with the
prosecution's case. And by the way, I don't even know
(40:31):
that they feel satisfied because they had.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
A lot of things blow up on them during jury selection.
It's not a slam dunk.
Speaker 1 (40:39):
And part of the reason for that, and it should
have been.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
And this is what I was going to say is
there are severe limitations that are put on prosecutors and
the defense, But this is the prosecutor's case to prove
there are serious limitations for the scope of what they
can do and what they can't do. And the scope
of this case is so limited, even though allegations spanning
twenty years.
Speaker 1 (41:02):
It's like you watch our president do an amazing speech.
They've written their own speech. Both sides have written their
own speech, and they're trying to fight to get as
many words of their speech in before the time runs out.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
That's exactly right for both.
Speaker 1 (41:13):
So what's so sad about all of this is is
there were no limitations on any of this behavior. When
(41:33):
it's tried, there's tons.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Of course, that's how it is.
Speaker 1 (41:38):
But this should have been going on since the nineties.
I know people that were twirling and twirling in the
freak oftin the nineties. So it took this long for
us to get here, and now we still have the
world centered on is anyone a hoe?
Speaker 2 (41:57):
What chaming?
Speaker 1 (42:00):
Hasn't this all just industry fodder? Everybody wanted it entertainment
as usual. We are still and we've never seen anything
like this. The magnitude of what this is. This is
a nine point seven earthquake happening in front of us.
We've got a few of them. By the way, I'm
sure you're real busy over there. We're at war. Ice
(42:21):
is down the street, and we got Diddy coming through.
It's there are earthquakes, shifting, big shifting things occurring. Is
the way that this time feels give us a bad
outcome because we're normalizing so much chaos that the jury
will just do a little bit more of that when
(42:41):
they decide on this, because you know, damn well, when
you go look back at history, let's just bring up
a case like oj Simpson.
Speaker 2 (42:50):
It's documented on Netflix.
Speaker 1 (42:52):
Now by the lawyers themselves of how much tomfoolery they played,
how much scripting and narratives and bullshit they came up with,
and how they truly get depended on a sign of
the times to get them through. The sign of the
times right now is we are at war in.
Speaker 2 (43:10):
The Middle East.
Speaker 1 (43:11):
Ice is down the block, detaining people that you don't
even really dislike or have any issue with it, and
we are everybody's wondering if they're going to have their
job any year. I think because technology is moving so fast.
I don't even know if I'm watching a real person
when I watch people online anymore. Look is it's getting scary.
(43:33):
It is a crazy time. And you're absolutely right that
all of these trials, it depends on the world and
which we're living so culturally, politically, socially, how things are different.
I mean, when I covered the first Weinstein case in
twenty twenty, it was a completely different time of the world.
But I want to leave you with something that resonued
(43:54):
with me. I recently didn't.
Speaker 2 (43:55):
Interview with Toronto Burke, who is the founder of the
Me Too movement, and her life work has been advocating
for survivors of sexual violence. And I was talking to
her about this case, about the Ditty case, and she
said to me, it is such a whim that he
is even in a courtroom. And where I'm about to say,
(44:15):
I thought was so poignant of her. She said, the
criminal justice system has never been set up for vistims
and we should not put all of our eggs in
that basket, because if you do, you will just be disappointed. Oh.
I thought that hearing that from her and hearing her perspective.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
It's going to be the perspective. I refuse it, I
rebuke it. We did not go through I I will
just speak for me as a woman that has been
in the music industry for twenty some years.
Speaker 2 (44:48):
My life's work.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
Will not go in things. We have to do better.
As a system. We had to hold ourselves accountable and
be responsible for our be behavior, for the behavior that
we witness. Call the cops, tell on people. Normalize using
the justice system, more normalize believing in it. That way,
(45:13):
when you sit on a jury, you will hold yourself
to a higher standard because people that are sitting on
there right now are holding a whole lot in their hands,
and it's so much bigger than Ditty or any Jane do.
Speaker 2 (45:28):
And I will tell you from my coverage of trials
like these, I have learned, of course, the vertist it's
not just symbolic, but it's quite literally put someone behind
bars or not. So it is. I don't want what
I'm saying to be taken out of contact, but it's
not important. Of course the vertict is important. But what
(45:48):
I have learned from my coverage is it's not just
the vertist, it's also how these trials and the awareness
of it and the discussions and the discussion we're having
now how it impacts society and how it impacts pulls.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
The discussion if it gets off is so damaging. I
don't know that I'd want to stay in the fight. Liz, Okay,
let me ask you this, how are you going to
feel as the journalist that first had their hands.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
On watching.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
Him dropkick Cassie, and you knew what the impact it
would have that you had in your hands and you
saw it before it was put on CNN. I think
the work that we have done speaks for itself. And
I think again, verdicts are so important, and verdicts are
(46:45):
symbolic of what people think are is right or wrong.
Speaker 2 (46:48):
But for Chogkoms, there's no going back. Domestic violence is
absolutely unaccessible and what we saw in that video was
horrific on every which cellular levels, and even his defense
said that that is their whole defense, is that what
he's done is indefensible. However, he's not guilty of these
(47:09):
charges because they knew there's no way around it. So
there's two ways to think of it. There's a court
of law and there's a court of public opinion. And
Cassie back in twenty sixteen when she was violently beaten
in that hallway. Well, guess what, the people at the
hotel didn't do anything. They were paid off. The police
did not do anything. So you have these different systems
(47:31):
people that are supposed to help when bad things happen.
Speaker 1 (47:34):
Yeah, I literally shout hotels at on my Instagram now
that weren't involved in any of the transcripts. Every time
I learned a new hotel's name, I was heartbroken because
I will never stay there, right.
Speaker 2 (47:45):
But to make answer your question, you have these different
systems that are supposed to protect us all in society.
If something bad happens, you call the police. They're supposed
to help you. If something that's rights in a hotel,
they're supposed to do something. And what I've learned is
the power of journalism and the power of people just
(48:06):
using their voice and being truth tellers is so impactful
because as you're saying that that tape is the most
important piece of evidence. By the way, the defense said
that too. They were working very hard to get it
out of the case. We'll get how the prosecution wouldn't
have that tape if it were not for our team's
work at CNN, and that showed to me the power
(48:30):
of journalism and again the power of people using their voice.
So that is what I pray to.
Speaker 1 (48:36):
God, that the exclamation point doesn't stop at you, but exclamation.
Speaker 2 (48:40):
Point, exclamation point, exclamation point. I will also say, the
final point I want to make is this case, no
matter what happens, has put such a spotlight on domestic
violence and violence against women, which one in four women
in America experienced some form of intimate violence, intimate partner
violence throughout their life. And I know that from my reporting,
(49:03):
and I also know for my reporting that after we
broke the Cassie Taste and then after Cassie posted about
it on her Instagram, number repeated numbers were skyrocketing at Rain,
which is the rape potline, and it's a domestic violence potline,
So it showed there is real life impact and this
(49:24):
is not in this case. This is a celebrity issue.
It's Sean Combs and Cassie, but it's not a celebrity issue.
This is a systemic problem around the world and this
case has really put a spotlight on that. And that's why,
regardless of the verdict, and again I'm not trying to
discount the verdict. It's incredibly important for everyone involved in
(49:47):
this style on both sides, and for people watching and.
Speaker 1 (49:50):
Eight eighty civil eighty plus civil suits that are well.
Speaker 2 (49:54):
That's the other thing too, is what I will be
watching with my reporting is what happens in this vertice
will greatly impact all the civil accusers. We will either
see suits being pursuit or we will see suits being withdrawn.
Speaker 1 (50:07):
For some reason, I don't know what life looks like
at the end of this one, and I should mm hmm,
But somehow this great week changes so much m m.
Maybe because my whole entire life has been in the
music industry. We're either going to like allow this stuff
(50:28):
or we aren't right and that's the trip and not
as an Actually I don't see anyone else getting tried
that's gonna bring this back up in my lifetime.
Speaker 2 (50:37):
It's like watching a nominee for as for.
Speaker 1 (50:41):
The female president go. It's like, we're not gonna probably
get another one in my lifetime.
Speaker 2 (50:47):
Like this sucks.
Speaker 1 (50:50):
Maybe maybe you know, it's like this is a big one.
I don't know who's bigger it's coming next. This is
pretty big. Everyone should be paying attention. Thank you, Lis,
thank you,
Amy and TJ present Aubrey O'Day covering the Didy trial. Okay,
so hey guys, we are back.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
We are now in the home stretch.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
Officially, the government has rested and the defense has rested.
But let me first introduce my guest, Elizabeth wad My
search is my favorite journalist of all time, the most
epic ever. Elizabeth was the one that obtained the video
of Cassie being horrifically beat in the hallway and was
(00:37):
able to bring it to the forefront and start to
the really big discussion that has become this trial of
Diddy and his behavior. That video was for me, I'll
just speak from on my own end. That was the
first time anyone on the victim side got to breathe.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
A lot of loss, A lot of.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Things were going on during that time. That video was
the very first thing that I noticed. A majority of
my cell phone was like, oh my God, like I
can take a breath. A majority of people that write
me they felt like maybe people will believe them a
little bit, and it was the first time they had
(01:22):
ever gotten the chance to feel that in their life.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
What's so interesting about that? And you know, I'm hearing
you speak from your perspective and the perspective of other
people that you had been in touch with. But what's
so interesting, and this feels like such a long time ago,
because now we're at the tail end of the trial,
But remember that when our team at CNN, when we
broke that footage, Remember that Sean Holmes had denied everything
(01:52):
in Cassy's lawsuits. Before that, he released a statement denying
the quaims. Now, he did not get into the specifics,
but when her lossuit came out, he said that it
was entirely untrue. That's not a quote I'm paraphrasing.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Yeah, I guess him paying her off within twenty four
hours kind of killed that for all of us in
the streets.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
But here's what was so interesting. But I'm glad you
brought up that there was a settlement because you remember
that his attorney at the time, he's no longer representing him,
So he's a statement to the media at that point
saying that a settlement is in no way in an
admission of guilt. And then what do you know, we
released this video, which is obviously horrific and every which way. Yeah,
(02:32):
and it wasn't until then that we got the apologies.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Well, here's what's crazy too. Were you not tripping when
you were in court? Because another thing for everyone listening,
she's in court every day, So this is my first
chance to really get to speak with someone that is.
Of course I speak to people inside the courtroom every
day all day, but for my audience, this is the
first time we're getting in a true insider's perspective of
the room. So I wanted, I do want to spend
(02:57):
a lot of our time asking you about the way
that things are looking.
Speaker 2 (03:02):
I didn't realize that. I also, yeah, it's that I
was your first guest who's inside the koorom.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
So yeah, I mean, I mean, you know a lot
of journalists that come forward or that talk about this
are not sitting there like you are, watching every single thing.
Like even for your own company, you'll go in and
do reports on scene or you see reports on scene
when you watch any any news company. But to sit
down and like have a heart to heart with somebody
(03:27):
that's truly observing everything, it really does open your perspective
much wider. So tell me what it looked like for
him to stand up. I heard he's skinnier than normal.
There's reports about gray gums. I don't know what that
means or doesn't mean. My people have been telling me
different things, the hair being very gray.
Speaker 2 (03:49):
Let's got a haircut this week.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
By the way, Oh, there was a haircut this week.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
There was a haircut this week.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
Maybe that helps with the energy, because today's energy in
writing came like a bullet through my heart with the
I'm great, thank you so much. Judge, you're doing a
great job. Are you in charge of the whole jury
and room? And are you congratulating the judge on doing
a great job.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Well, the first thing is that's really important. The jury
was not present for.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
That, so the jury didn't even get to hear him
say I'm choosing not to testify.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
No, why the jury was on the lunch brace. And
then that is when, as you said, with this rule
twenty nine, that his defense filed the motion for acquittal,
they are asking the judge to say that he's not
guilty on all five charges. That happens not in the
presence of the jury. And then, as you said, the
(04:44):
judge didn't make a decision. So the judge basically that
I'm not going to rule on this right now.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
But in ninety nine percent of the times. Judges never
roll on Rule twenty nine motions. They want to leave
it up to the jury. I highly doubt it's going
to happen here.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Oh no, it would be. It would be the biggest shocked.
It would be the biggest shot and they either way.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
I wanted to say to tell me exactly how it looks,
but also I wanted to say to you before I
forget to analyze this when you come back with your response.
It felt scary, like a freight train, like a bullet
through my heart. But then when I sat with it
for a second, I thought, if I'm a judge and
you feel mighty as a judge, you go through a
whole lot of schooling, a whole lot of test taking,
(05:26):
a whole lot of mastering in order.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
To get that position.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
To have somebody who you've had to watch and freak
off and watch women testify all kinds of different things,
to have to watch that with a straight face, and
then have that same man first words over you be, Hey,
great job, You're doing a good job, Bud. I would
go home and feel some kind of way about that
type of arrogance. Did he proceed it with arrogance? Was
(05:51):
there any of that in his facial look.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
So here's what I'll tell you this judge. I've covered
a lot of trials. This judge incredibly fair and he
has complete control over the courtroom. He has control. He's
very very conscious he has control over both parties. So
he kind of chuckled when he said, you know, thank
you to him.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
But you wouldn't be able to tell if he found
it arrogant or if he found it endearing. But all
that I have to tell you is this is a drug.
As all judges should be with this.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
How long was the chuckle, Elizabeth?
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Oh, it was quick, Like this was a comment of
like okay, moving on. You know, like he responded to
be polite because of a human you have to respond
to someone.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
Now, he definitely felt the narcissism on it. It's off putting.
I feel like that's a stumble of off put that's
not like a wow. I feel so lucky that the
guy that was just in that video pissing all over
people is telling me I did a great job.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
Well. Remember this is also the judge who remember when
Diddy was trying to be released on bail as he
was awaiting up three times three times that this is
a judge. That's the third time he would not release
them on bail because he agreed with executor that Diddy
was a danger to society. So I think this judge
is very focused on the facts, very focused on the evidence.
(07:07):
The testimony. Something like a polite comments is not going anywhere.
It's not the Dudeen's decision.
Speaker 1 (07:15):
Well, what's crazy is is like it's almost I know,
you know as well as I mastered as a student
of people, I would say I do that better than
singing as a student of people. I watched ditty for
many years. People are going to look at it like, oh,
he's so arrogant. He thinks he run things like how
(07:36):
I said, Wow, King Knight, you're in charge of the room.
He must just never be able to get out of
that mind state if he's the boss. It's in there.
But I read it as a tell in a negative way.
I read it as a tell a little bit. And
I really need your help tomorrow. I need you to
(07:56):
give my attorneys a little bit of the doak when
they come at you with how we're wording some of
these things.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Well, look, I mean this is it's.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Going to come down to how they word things. This
trial is not a slam dunk, unfortunately, and a lot
of people are confused by that. A lot of victims
are pissed off by that. But it's just not a
slam dunk, unfortunately, it's not.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
It's not at all. And look, sex crimes are incredibly
difficult to prosecute. It is a staggering small percentage of
how many sex crimes are even prosecuted. So the fact
that this is even in a courtroom is really unbelievable.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Truly, if I take my emotions off of it, it's
just coming down to consent. And here's what I'm finding.
In a lot of the things that were submitted by
the defense. There was a lot of in writing proof
that Sean was paying for the escorts.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
There was and.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Actually, so when we talk about that, yeah, but you
just really hurt you you guys. DI stumbled a little bit.
The prosecution had a point where they came in and
were like, wait, so did you just say that he
paid you to transport somebody over across lines to commit.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
What Today's I thought that right, So let me tell
you exactly how that went down, because you know those
five charges, those racketeering sex, trafficking and transportation to engage
in prostitution. So this summary witness who's been on was
on the witness stand for three days, the prosecution's final witness,
as you know, and I won't bore you with this.
(09:31):
So basically he went through charts and charts and charts
and charts, and in the courtroom it's actually really boring.
But here people are falling asleep. But here's the thing.
It actually can prove to be one of the most
crucial witnesses because he is may be boring to listen to,
but this witness presented evidence. And now where's that evidence
going into the hands of the jury when they're in
(09:52):
the deliberation room. So when we see that there's thousands
of pages of phone records, hotel records, flight records, text messages,
big state, and those flight records are showing that male escort,
you know, number one whatever, you know.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
Couple flown from here to there and here to there.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
So the moment that you're talking about, which I would
say for the prosecution.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Already woke everyone up.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
It was a nice drop moment. So on read direct.
Of course, the prosecution goes first. Then cross examination was
a day and a half. And then the prosecutor Marine Comy.
She gets up there, and this is not an exact quote,
but she looks at the witness and she said, the
exhibits that you showed, what wasn't that proof of traveling
Cabral across state lines? And then you hear objection and
(10:39):
then adjections the same, and then she asked it in
another way, and then objection sustained, and then she finally said,
didn't Cabral fly from Atlanta to Miami on a flight
paid by mister? And they said yes, yes. What is
so strategic and smart of both When the prosecution and
the defense does this, they ask questions that they know
(11:00):
there's going to be an objection to. They know it
will be sustained. It will not be in the testimony,
meaning when the jury's deliberating, they're not looking at that.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
But they don't forget it. You don't ever forget it.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
There's a praise in courtrooms which is you can't hund
ring that bell.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
By the way, a lot of court cases are just
decided by that little tiny word. You just so that
little tiny pocket. If you were to be looking at
a pie chart, it's like a little sliver of terry pie.
But really it's where a trial's guts are.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
It's been those objections that are not going to be
put on record, but you still heard as a jerky
xactly right now. I'm still the genius at that. Actually,
all A Diddy's team has been killing that this entire trial.
They've been doing a great.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Job at that.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
What you're seeing in a lot of the writing are
moments of content, But what you're hearing on the stand
is that moment of consent. Is this is actually where
I was and how I felt when I wrote this message.
That looks damning if you were to see the message
in black and white, but when you had the person
on the stand saying when I said, oh, I wanted
(12:17):
be extra dirty this time, in my head, I was
in my room knowing that he was with the other
girl and that he loved me when I did this,
and then he was going to leave me or go
off with this other person, or that he wouldn't even
spend time with me this week, and I would feel
like low self worth, no value as a person. My
whole life, my identity was attached to him. I couldn't
even literally drive a car or leave a house without
(12:39):
being reported on. And I wanted his attention, and so
I offered him up some free pictures or sex talk
or chat in order to engage him. Because he showed
these women exactly what their value was enough times to
know what it is they have to do in order
to be exciting to them. And when he loses interest,
which basicly is coercion, that's what music industry coersion looks like.
(13:04):
Baby girl, let me tell you what this is, that
baby girl line of his. Oh man, we all know
it so well, baby girl, this is what it is.
This is how your body needs to look, and this
is how you need to be if you want my attention.
This is what you need to do, if you want
a platinum album, This is what you need to do
if you want to have Daddy's money and attention. It's
(13:26):
all coercion in one way or another. It's somebody very
powerful against people that are so don't even understand the
power system.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
Then you know, this is exactly why the prosecution has
spent so much time on baby oil, baby oil, baby oil,
hotel rooms, hotel rooms, you know all these things. And
I obviously follow all the commentary on TikTok on social
media everywhere, and a lot of people are saying, we
get it. He has the freak coups like why do
you keep bringing this up? But you bring up a
(13:56):
really smart point because if juror believes that this pattern,
when you have done this to multiple women, even if
the girlfriend's consensual girlfriends, if this is the behavior that
you expect from these women, and it may not seem
normal to a lot of these jurors, then they may
think exactly what you're saying, Audrey, which is wow, that
(14:17):
does feel like coercion. And even if these women in
text and in person agreed to it seem willing. I
keep saying throughout this trial, this is going to come
down to does the jury believe what they see in
evidence or do they believe what they've heard. And that's
why these things are so hard to prove because it
can be very, very confusing and complex.
Speaker 1 (14:40):
Cassie and Jane. For me, I mean, I know them both,
I've been around them both. I've seen how both operate
and maneuver. Two different, totally different human beings, two totally
different women. I know what the jurors are seeing because
I know who these people are. I know how they ask,
I know what their mannerisms are. I've studied them. I've
been around them enough to understand them. I know how
(15:01):
they come up. I don't know how they came up
in the room. But you, as somebody who is an
observer who didn't know them in a prior life and
was just observing them during this trial, if you're a
person in the jury or by standard, in the room
in general, were you able to see that these two
girls may have different intentions when they operate.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
These are two completely different women.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
And it was clear to you you wouldn't get them
mixed up, even if you were a man who doesn't
think about women and that many diverse categories potentially, I
believe this as.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Clear as day, that these are very different women. Now
is a crossover, yes, if you are maybe a more
you know, adjur with more conservative beliefs. And I'm not
saying that politically, I mean like conservative meaning that you
would never go to a sex party and that everything
you're hearing is disgusting to you. They may say, then,
(15:57):
quite frankly, sorry, I'm going on to hand it out
something that I have been thinking of, knowing these jury
behaviors and how they deliberate. There can be a fair
amount of floodshaming from these jurors on these women.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Because I want to be honest with you, I'm doing
it at home. I'm just going to straight up say
it as a woman. I don't believe in it. I
don't like it. I stand against it. I absolutely despise
any thoughts like that, and I want to be honest.
I've had thoughts like that during this trial. I don't
go and broadcast them. I have personal friends that i'll
(16:31):
express them to that I know will hold that discretion
for me to be able to get something out of
my body that is necessary for me to be able
to keep my bias in check. All the way up
until the first person got on the stand. I judged
that person too many times. And I am the first
celebrity that came forward and took up for her.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
I don't even know how many.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
Did after me.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Frankly, not many.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
When I was the first person to come in this
industry and say I back, Cassie you.
Speaker 2 (17:03):
Were I remember I was on air and I saw
what you wrote, and I read it on air.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
I read so and I had moments where I had
to where I really had to like make sure I
was standing on ten toes because there were things I saw.
There were willing days, and I was sitting all the
way up to her taking the stand, like, man, oh man,
I hope she is honest, and I hope it is
what I thought it was when I saw it. You know,
(17:27):
this is somebody that was so naive, was so young,
was so unaware of so many things, and got swept
into this world that is like is like Disneyland on
crack and the minute hands.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
You crack, right, Okay, So Ashley, this is the difference.
This is the main difference between Cassie in Vaine and
if this is from my observation in the courtroom and
if I'm a jur this is what I'm thinking. The
main difference is Caffi was nineteen years old, she was
signed a bad boy, She was given a ten record deal,
which is not something that exists, and then suddenly she's
(18:01):
on the label. She comes out with this huge hit
which only he can control, and then she's his girlfriend. Jane,
on the other hand, was not nineteen. She was a
grown woman later in life, and she was a girlfriend.
She says she was a girlfriend so whatever you want
to call it, she was not a musician. She was
(18:23):
not on his label, her career was not in his hand.
She testified to that he was pursuing her and she
was pursuing him. So very different women in very different stories.
And that's why, you know, after Jane's testimony, a lot
of our legal analysts on CNN we're saying, why was
the prosecutors called Jane she has now damaged Cassie's testimony?
Speaker 1 (18:49):
What were their responses to that? Because I felt like
they first thought about like she was on longer than Cassie.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
I don't know if she was that. It felt like
Cassie was four days and Jane was six days.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
Yeah, why didn't need six days of her?
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Number one?
Speaker 1 (19:02):
Number two? Once she started getting past a certain point,
I was wondering, like, why are we continuing this? Like
it's starting to bleed into Cassie. I was feeling it's
starting to take over Cassie and Cassie's She got done,
and I was like, I am so glad that I
stood by her. She told the truth, He told the
hard truths. She told the days where she wanted things right.
(19:25):
I gleed to things she was transparent about who she
was and able to identify who that first person was.
And she's been able to grow enough to be able
to reflect on that, and I felt all of it
was like it all felt like it felt like it
sat right in my heart. In regards to defending it.
Speaker 2 (19:46):
Being in the courtroom, it really resonated.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
Now did Jane resonate with the jury?
Speaker 2 (19:53):
I think Jane is so complex because she's sitting there
on the stands saying that my attorney representing me today
is being paid by Shawn Combs, the homan with from
living with my kid is being I.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
Can take her up the stand right then and there.
Why does Soulcris be there?
Speaker 2 (20:07):
This was a gift to the defense and that's why
she was on the stand for so long, because the
defense had a field day with her and they weren't
going to let her off the stand. And that's the
risk you run anytime you bring on a complex witness.
But I bring up these patterns which I set a
few moments ago. Even if many people think that Jane
(20:29):
was a very problematic witness, and she certainly may prove
to be, there is an element of patterns that shows
I'm not talking about the women's conduct. I'm talking about
Shawn Combs's com.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
The exact There were patterns in they want he wants
them in costumes, he wants them moved up white, nailed
the hair a certain way, that nails a certain way.
The scenes, the scenarios with the escorts, the same patterns
of behaviors, the same setups, the constant desires and tech
messages and communications to for them to reach out to
(21:02):
these men and get dick photos and then even sexual interactions.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
With wait that, based on their testimony is a form,
a major form of control. Where they are the ones
who are now making these arrangements.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
I have a question when you watched the jury and
they had the headphones on and they were watching the
videos that you don't get to see, correct, correct, what
were the visuals? What were the face souls giving?
Speaker 2 (21:35):
I have to tell you this jury like they have
poker faces. Let me put it this way, when the
headphones are on, there's really no visible reaction from any
of the jerks. Yeah. Now it's a fool of errands.
I guess what the Jersey thinks. I know, and I
here after we'll do an interview and we'll be totally
I heard the same thing you said.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
The videos. There wasn't anything to grab, Nobody was moving
their faces like that. See anybody so horror?
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Do you remember? Because the journey didn't see the freak
out videos until really the past week before they'd only
seemed still exist. Yeah, that first time, which again was
the first time they had seen any sexually explicit content.
That was the first and only time really that I
saw one of the jurors, a woman, seemed a bit
(22:24):
horrified and shocked by it. But I think as it
goes on, A I think they could be a bit
defensitized to this, or B they know that they should
have a poker face because they know that the media
is in there and they know that we're looking at them.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Yeah, and you don't want to be sitting there having
First of all, you know, you've got to be real
careful with the facial when you're watching pornography in front
of the world.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
And also, can I tell you that is something I
thought of. I mean, they've watched a lot of footage
over the past week, Like how uncomfortable you eighteen jurors
sitting next to each other and they're all watching porn.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
I mean, listen, I've opened up porn or in my lifetime.
I'm forty one years old, that's watched one before. If
I've come across a girl getting on her knees with
her mouth open, dressed up as a dolly and heels
getting pissed men pissing in her mouth, I'm not getting
I'm immediately off of that entire site and onto something else,
and I'm having like horrified thoughts for a few days,
(23:21):
and I'm not really even gonna go near anything for
a saw hot second because it's just a little traumatizing
and a bit like just yuck.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
Well, so here what's interesting. So I don't know nobody
besides the jury and the attorneys know what is in
those videos, and that's the people that were in the
courtroom that have hearing like I do.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
I did hear some m's and some groans and someone there.
Speaker 2 (23:41):
There was a day where you could hear.
Speaker 1 (23:43):
Everything smacking on I heard baby oil smacking on walls
a lot.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
Yeah, no, you could. There was one day in particular
that you could hear, and then they realized that you
could hear, so then they started turning off the mics
too many.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
There there was some moment in Cassie's testimony where I
was like dead sold and I didn't really even need
to hear anything else. I would just believe whatever she
wants to say in the charges and just go from there.
She said we were all I was dressed up like
a doll. However in the costume, he wanted my hair right,
and these hook the hooker heels he wants them wearing,
though I think of like stripper heels or whatever. You
(24:19):
have to go to a special place and get these heels.
I only know this because we had to dance in
them half the time in the girl group. But you
have to like go to custom places. You can't just
get these heels at Steve Madden and like they have
these custom heels. And She's like, we're all standing in
this fucking pool inflatable pool with like and Cassy was like,
(24:39):
I don't know. We were standing in there. We kept
asking us to get down and bathe in the in
the oil, and we were just standing there and like
we were like looking at each other, like what the
fuck are we doing? This is stupid right for me,
captivated me because it wasn't sexy, it wasn't hot, it
wasn't even on the to do a look in a
(25:01):
moment for my man.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
I love it was giving.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Everyone in the room is uncomfortable and feels this as
weird as shit. Bro with the camera, weirdo over there?
What do you want us to do? What are we doing?
Speaker 2 (25:12):
Work?
Speaker 1 (25:12):
We don't know what to do? This is weird.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
Well, that's why these women have said that they felt
like they were there to live out his fantasy. I
from sitting there every day, you know, that's what the
defense has been doing. Is anyone who worked for him,
it was didn't you do great things for your career?
And how do you feel about him today? And with
the exes, you know, how do you feel about him today?
No one on the stand, not even Cassie, said I
(25:35):
hate his guts, not one person. What did she say?
She said something to the effects of God, I wish
I had the tramps in front of me, but something
to the effect of I don't hate him, It's just
not in me. And it was very powerful because she
was basically showing I don't have this is I'm I'm rehashing,
you know, her testimony in summarizing she was basically trying
(25:58):
to make the point I don't have Zandata. This is
not out of site, but I'm here to do what's
right and what happened to me is not okay. And
remember when she was asked why she was there, she
said it was to right wrong. Because even though she
is testifying that she was victimized, she also.
Speaker 1 (26:18):
Feels participated in criminal behavior. She even said it on
the stand. I didn't know what's criminal when I was
doing and then they tried stopping.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Her exactly exactly.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
Wasn't aware that every sh there was a point where
she started realizing what was criminal and what wasn't. That's
what troubled me with Jane's testimony so much is girl,
If you were confused when it was made black and
white and writing in an lawsuit, you should have unconfused yourself.
And then when you actually saw the video on CNN,
you really should have unconfused yourself. You shouldn't have been
(26:49):
looking at takes of his apology videos. If you notice that,
did you also trip out on that? Because I was
thinking of you in that moment, like you were sitting
there knowing what you had in your hands and what
was about to be shown to the world, while another
girl was sitting there combing through his apology videos trying
to figure out which one seems most since she even
(27:10):
says that he showed me a video and I felt
he didn't seem sincere in it, a different one was posted.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
I will tell you ad for me has been pretty wild,
sitting in court and putting the pieces together, because there's
a lot that even I didn't know, which is finding
out you know how shown Combs found out about that?
You know, of course, what did they say?
Speaker 1 (27:32):
How did he find out? I didn't know that part hit?
Speaker 2 (27:35):
So he was in bed with Jane in his home
in Miami and one of his sons walked in the
room and said, something has happened, And that's how he
found out that it had aired. Now what's interesting from
my standpoint.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
Is, of course you know this, that's crazy journalism on
your part, because normally things are so messy. Everybody knows
something that's wild. How did you do that?
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Can? I tell you? This is what was so interesting
to me, as all these pieces are falling into place,
and I'm kind of the puzzle is being stilled out
for the pieces that I did not know. Of course,
I did my beyond due diligence, of course, a comment
from his team when you saw a report it said
that we had made numerous attempts. But of course I
(28:21):
was not reaching out directly to Shaun Holmes, Like, that's
not what you do. He has representatives that he pays
a lot of money to speak for these things, And.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
How do you learn what those representatives ares? They don't
Like I always wonder, how do people know who my
reds are? Is? They're like a www dot com? This
is who reps this person? How do you know that?
Speaker 2 (28:47):
So there's a few things. So yes there is, but
that when you were in a scandal a crisis, you
often bring in crisis management. So like there is databases
that you can pay for to basically see who reps celebrities,
like who they are agents and publicists like all of
the news organizations you did you have to write KK
not for them. But I have made numerous attempts with
(29:11):
her for other things.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Where's she hiding? Do we know?
Speaker 2 (29:15):
We do not know? And I will have you been
in this country? So I had reached out to you.
Remember when she released that statement saying that you know
she's not involved in anything and all that I did?
Speaker 1 (29:27):
When did she release that statement? I didn't realize that.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
In March, so two months before the trial, she released
a statement that said, you know, all of the wrongdoing
that has been alledged beside my former boss, you know
I have nothing to do with egregious claims have been
made about me. Blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
Did she know that they had her phones by that
point when she made that statement, she did.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
So I reached out to offer her an interview because
I would like to hear more of her. Sorry, And
I did make contact with her attorney, who said, who's there, attorney,
it's not I don't want to say here.
Speaker 1 (30:00):
Is it's somebody that I would know? Or is it?
Is it a big name?
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Okay, it's not like one of the like celebrity like
criminal attorney Okay, because if it was, I would say it.
But they said to me that until the criminal case
is resolved, in all of the civil cases are resolved,
that she can't speak. And throughout the trial, I've reached
out more and more and more a for an interview,
but B two C comment and now they have gone
(30:24):
radio set that line.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
I think there's I think there's gonna be more indictments.
I think I'm predicting it. Now there's going to be
more indictments and she's going to be hit with the
co conspirac Remember that.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
When the first indictment came out, and there were numerous
superseding indictments. But the prosecutors had said, and I have
been reporting to the time that their investigation was still.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
Ongoing, and this whole battle of everyone not understanding if
it was just him or an enterprise. I saw an enterprise.
I saw other criminals, and I saw other crimes. I
don't understand why they aren't in this case.
Speaker 2 (31:03):
And what do you mean by that? If there's anything
that you're comfortable elaborating, like, what do you mean by that?
Speaker 1 (31:08):
I saw a whole bunch of people running things, not
just the people that are taken The people that have
taken a stand are very a very minor part or
a different era, right, There's a whole lot of people.
I didn't see any of them on the stand. So
(31:30):
and to me, I said, to this person, you know,
and he would They were basically saying, like, you know,
kind of saying, this is just all girlfriends over here
in this trial area and not just slippery subject for
many reasons in many ways. And that's not just a
music industry thing. Every industry's got a sleezy boss. Every
industry's got somebody that doesn't know any better and wants
(31:52):
to advance. Like every job has forms of this going on.
And I was like, no, we need I don't.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
I don't know that we can.
Speaker 1 (32:01):
Look at this so wide and so systematically.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
First of all, they make it okay, like.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
No, no, and that's what I said. Well, I said, well,
if everybody has this and people are just paying more
attention because we're in the entertainment industry and people watch
us more and this is a huge megastar, then shouldn't
we make an example and show everybody else that this
is not allowed in the workplace. I shouldn't we be
shouldn't we then be really showing people? Because what are
(32:26):
we going to be showing them if we don't do
you know how many people fly people in sex working
jobs across state lines for their satisfy faction, Like that's
a very scary thing that you're putting out there on
the line right now for a whole lot of fucking people.
And frankly, we need to nip it in the butt.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
A lot of.
Speaker 1 (32:49):
People are not safe because a lot of people in
these settings. Clearly, as you are learning, are inebriated. You
can't make good calls on other people lives, what alone, emotional, soul, spirit,
all the other things that we are not even discussing
right now. Cassie was from the rest of her life
(33:10):
trying to clear the emotional soul side of the that
what she had to testify she did. She may be
able to vocalize it ten something years after cleansing it
from your soul is life work. We're not even discussing
that prison sentence. Everybody in this industry understands some form
(33:36):
of identifying this person as a fucking criminal. Everybody's disunderstanding
it from different lenses, depending on what decades you were in,
depending on who's around you, who you knew, what bodyguards
and assistance were in place at different times. I didn't
know Kk, but I sure it's fuck knew Capricorn, and
(33:59):
I knew friend even better. But she was found dead
on her couch after she sued Ditty for millions.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
Well, so here's what I keep telling everyone, because I'm
asked about this case. Everyone, even just like my friends
and family asked me, and I tell them what Ditty
has been accused of. Is this thick you know, like
I'm putting.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
My arms up like and Elizabeth. By the way, that's
not even big compared to what the industry is discussing, right,
very minor. That's that little tiny piece of the pie.
That's how crazy it.
Speaker 2 (34:32):
Is for me to watch this. I'm sure I'm going ahead,
I keep going. So you know, the accusations against Big
all what she denies, by the way, but the accusations
against him could like fill up you know, every room
that you're in, right, But this case is miniscule. It's
this big. It's centered around three different women. To hate
(34:55):
that former girlfriends, I hate that with so many reasons.
Why because off to the limitation.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
So it's insane to me, to me and from my
own degrees of my own story, I have things that
I still don't have answers to right. So I in
some way savee or form even though I report on
this trial, even though I'm somebody that everybody talks about
in regards this trial, makes up fake headlinds about whatever
the fuck they're going to do to me they do, right,
(35:23):
But I'm also a human in this. I have had
feelings for everybody across the board. I am somebody who
had an entire career built by this man.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
That they lose his.
Speaker 1 (35:36):
Entire life freedom.
Speaker 2 (35:41):
I don't take that not seriously.
Speaker 1 (35:45):
I don't know that I would offer a hand to
save him, But I don't have any particular feeling that
I want him to go down. I want the prosecutors
to prove their case. And I'm a bit underwhelmed in
this moment.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
Being in the room is so different, and it's hard
to explain that to me. You can't explain. But the
thing is is there's a lot of grey area. Nothing
is black and white. You know all the reasons that
we just spoke about with Jane for particular. You know,
you could see that a lot of these jurors are
(36:25):
gonna not believe some of these women, right, there's a
lot of loopholes here. However, when you have sat in
the courtroom for two months and you have heard these
patterns of alleged.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
Behavior, isn't it crazy that proving consent takes this much.
You can't just be one person that says, hey, I
didn't consent to that. Imagine as one woman. You know
that we talk about how victims are so scared to
come forward.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Yet eighty plus have eighty plus.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
Against the biggest fucking star there is in the goddamn world.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
Men, ambles, men and women.
Speaker 1 (36:59):
And by the way, I even said this to a
man that's very powerful today, I would never in my
life suit this man. And I am out here with
my voice. I use it all the time. I was
fired on National TV because I was using it. I
was blacklisted, and I still used my mouthpiece. I'm somebody
that people consider have balls in this specific setting, definitely,
(37:23):
I would never go after him in any type of
legal way unless I had video from A to Z,
so I could just leave all bystanders and opinions of
everything aside and be able to prove it from A
to Z. Okay, But there are eighty people who aren't
even necessarily seen as the girl with balls like me,
that have come forward and alleged horrifying things, which has
(37:46):
happened to no other mega celebrity in my lifetime that
I have seen. It can't even be brought in. And
yet we're gonna come down to a jury of people.
We're gonna come down to knowing that they're gonna go
into a room and decide whether they believe exactly in
the consent, because this thing is going to come down
to consent.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
That's all I hear.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
Anyone saying, why did the girls come back and ask
for jobs after death? Is a consent piece all anyone
con continues to talk about it.
Speaker 2 (38:14):
No one is.
Speaker 1 (38:14):
Nobody's asking whether the baby oil is real. Nobody's asking
if they ask for guys World. Nobody's even asking if
the stripper heel part is real. Nobody's asked. It's just
did they want did they all want this? Or did
they not? And in writing you can see everybody say
they don't want it, they feel used, they feel this
and there, And in writing they can see them saying,
I want to be sexy for you tonight, daddy. You
(38:37):
can see both in writing that. What's crazy to me
is we are not moving the mark forward for any
victim in this world to feel comfortable on their own
merit to say I did not ask for this, I
did not want this this one time. I wanted it
(38:58):
twenty times, but this one time. Are these three times
I was raped or I was violated, or I didn't
want this? It doesn't matter if you did it twenty
billion times before, if one time you did not want it.
That is rape, that is violation, and that is what
(39:20):
is so hard for juris to understand. But with that
being said, that that feeling of like believing someone on
their merit and do you know how difficult it is
to go against this human.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
Remember the justice system, even if it should be and
it is designed to be, it's not about the truth.
It's about what twelve people believe.
Speaker 1 (39:42):
Correct, It's a theater. I literally said on the first
day of trial something on Twitter while it had to
go back and bookmark it, like let's see the theater begin,
Like this is it. This is going to be a
masterclass in theater. But beyond all of this, these charges
are so very big. There are so many of them,
(40:06):
so many of them that weren't even brought into this case.
But this case is the one not to miss on.
That's where the feeling of a little dissatisfaction with the
prosecution's case. And by the way, I don't even know
(40:31):
that they feel satisfied because they had.
Speaker 2 (40:33):
A lot of things blow up on them during jury selection.
It's not a slam dunk.
Speaker 1 (40:39):
And part of the reason for that, and it should
have been.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
And this is what I was going to say is
there are severe limitations that are put on prosecutors and
the defense, But this is the prosecutor's case to prove
there are serious limitations for the scope of what they
can do and what they can't do. And the scope
of this case is so limited, even though allegations spanning
twenty years.
Speaker 1 (41:02):
It's like you watch our president do an amazing speech.
They've written their own speech. Both sides have written their
own speech, and they're trying to fight to get as
many words of their speech in before the time runs out.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
That's exactly right for both.
Speaker 1 (41:13):
So what's so sad about all of this is is
there were no limitations on any of this behavior. When
(41:33):
it's tried, there's tons.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Of course, that's how it is.
Speaker 1 (41:38):
But this should have been going on since the nineties.
I know people that were twirling and twirling in the
freak oftin the nineties. So it took this long for
us to get here, and now we still have the
world centered on is anyone a hoe?
Speaker 2 (41:57):
What chaming?
Speaker 1 (42:00):
Hasn't this all just industry fodder? Everybody wanted it entertainment
as usual. We are still and we've never seen anything
like this. The magnitude of what this is. This is
a nine point seven earthquake happening in front of us.
We've got a few of them. By the way, I'm
sure you're real busy over there. We're at war. Ice
(42:21):
is down the street, and we got Diddy coming through.
It's there are earthquakes, shifting, big shifting things occurring. Is
the way that this time feels give us a bad
outcome because we're normalizing so much chaos that the jury
will just do a little bit more of that when
(42:41):
they decide on this, because you know, damn well, when
you go look back at history, let's just bring up
a case like oj Simpson.
Speaker 2 (42:50):
It's documented on Netflix.
Speaker 1 (42:52):
Now by the lawyers themselves of how much tomfoolery they played,
how much scripting and narratives and bullshit they came up with,
and how they truly get depended on a sign of
the times to get them through. The sign of the
times right now is we are at war in.
Speaker 2 (43:10):
The Middle East.
Speaker 1 (43:11):
Ice is down the block, detaining people that you don't
even really dislike or have any issue with it, and
we are everybody's wondering if they're going to have their
job any year. I think because technology is moving so fast.
I don't even know if I'm watching a real person
when I watch people online anymore. Look is it's getting scary.
(43:33):
It is a crazy time. And you're absolutely right that
all of these trials, it depends on the world and
which we're living so culturally, politically, socially, how things are different.
I mean, when I covered the first Weinstein case in
twenty twenty, it was a completely different time of the world.
But I want to leave you with something that resonued
(43:54):
with me. I recently didn't.
Speaker 2 (43:55):
Interview with Toronto Burke, who is the founder of the
Me Too movement, and her life work has been advocating
for survivors of sexual violence. And I was talking to
her about this case, about the Ditty case, and she
said to me, it is such a whim that he
is even in a courtroom. And where I'm about to say,
(44:15):
I thought was so poignant of her. She said, the
criminal justice system has never been set up for vistims
and we should not put all of our eggs in
that basket, because if you do, you will just be disappointed. Oh.
I thought that hearing that from her and hearing her perspective.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
It's going to be the perspective. I refuse it, I
rebuke it. We did not go through I I will
just speak for me as a woman that has been
in the music industry for twenty some years.
Speaker 2 (44:48):
My life's work.
Speaker 1 (44:51):
Will not go in things. We have to do better.
As a system. We had to hold ourselves accountable and
be responsible for our be behavior, for the behavior that
we witness. Call the cops, tell on people. Normalize using
the justice system, more normalize believing in it. That way,
(45:13):
when you sit on a jury, you will hold yourself
to a higher standard because people that are sitting on
there right now are holding a whole lot in their hands,
and it's so much bigger than Ditty or any Jane do.
Speaker 2 (45:28):
And I will tell you from my coverage of trials
like these, I have learned, of course, the vertist it's
not just symbolic, but it's quite literally put someone behind
bars or not. So it is. I don't want what
I'm saying to be taken out of contact, but it's
not important. Of course the vertict is important. But what
(45:48):
I have learned from my coverage is it's not just
the vertist, it's also how these trials and the awareness
of it and the discussions and the discussion we're having
now how it impacts society and how it impacts pulls.
Speaker 1 (46:02):
The discussion if it gets off is so damaging. I
don't know that I'd want to stay in the fight. Liz, Okay,
let me ask you this, how are you going to
feel as the journalist that first had their hands.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
On watching.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
Him dropkick Cassie, and you knew what the impact it
would have that you had in your hands and you
saw it before it was put on CNN. I think
the work that we have done speaks for itself. And
I think again, verdicts are so important, and verdicts are
(46:45):
symbolic of what people think are is right or wrong.
Speaker 2 (46:48):
But for Chogkoms, there's no going back. Domestic violence is
absolutely unaccessible and what we saw in that video was
horrific on every which cellular levels, and even his defense
said that that is their whole defense, is that what
he's done is indefensible. However, he's not guilty of these
(47:09):
charges because they knew there's no way around it. So
there's two ways to think of it. There's a court
of law and there's a court of public opinion. And
Cassie back in twenty sixteen when she was violently beaten
in that hallway. Well, guess what, the people at the
hotel didn't do anything. They were paid off. The police
did not do anything. So you have these different systems
(47:31):
people that are supposed to help when bad things happen.
Speaker 1 (47:34):
Yeah, I literally shout hotels at on my Instagram now
that weren't involved in any of the transcripts. Every time
I learned a new hotel's name, I was heartbroken because
I will never stay there, right.
Speaker 2 (47:45):
But to make answer your question, you have these different
systems that are supposed to protect us all in society.
If something bad happens, you call the police. They're supposed
to help you. If something that's rights in a hotel,
they're supposed to do something. And what I've learned is
the power of journalism and the power of people just
(48:06):
using their voice and being truth tellers is so impactful
because as you're saying that that tape is the most
important piece of evidence. By the way, the defense said
that too. They were working very hard to get it
out of the case. We'll get how the prosecution wouldn't
have that tape if it were not for our team's
work at CNN, and that showed to me the power
(48:30):
of journalism and again the power of people using their voice.
So that is what I pray to.
Speaker 1 (48:36):
God, that the exclamation point doesn't stop at you, but exclamation.
Speaker 2 (48:40):
Point, exclamation point, exclamation point. I will also say, the
final point I want to make is this case, no
matter what happens, has put such a spotlight on domestic
violence and violence against women, which one in four women
in America experienced some form of intimate violence, intimate partner
violence throughout their life. And I know that from my reporting,
(49:03):
and I also know for my reporting that after we
broke the Cassie Taste and then after Cassie posted about
it on her Instagram, number repeated numbers were skyrocketing at Rain,
which is the rape potline, and it's a domestic violence potline,
So it showed there is real life impact and this
(49:24):
is not in this case. This is a celebrity issue.
It's Sean Combs and Cassie, but it's not a celebrity issue.
This is a systemic problem around the world and this
case has really put a spotlight on that. And that's why,
regardless of the verdict, and again I'm not trying to
discount the verdict. It's incredibly important for everyone involved in
(49:47):
this style on both sides, and for people watching and.
Speaker 1 (49:50):
Eight eighty civil eighty plus civil suits that are well.
Speaker 2 (49:54):
That's the other thing too, is what I will be
watching with my reporting is what happens in this vertice
will greatly impact all the civil accusers. We will either
see suits being pursuit or we will see suits being withdrawn.
Speaker 1 (50:07):
For some reason, I don't know what life looks like
at the end of this one, and I should mm hmm,
But somehow this great week changes so much m m.
Maybe because my whole entire life has been in the
music industry. We're either going to like allow this stuff
(50:28):
or we aren't right and that's the trip and not
as an Actually I don't see anyone else getting tried
that's gonna bring this back up in my lifetime.
Speaker 2 (50:37):
It's like watching a nominee for as for.
Speaker 1 (50:41):
The female president go. It's like, we're not gonna probably
get another one in my lifetime.
Speaker 2 (50:47):
Like this sucks.
Speaker 1 (50:50):
Maybe maybe you know, it's like this is a big one.
I don't know who's bigger it's coming next. This is
pretty big. Everyone should be paying attention. Thank you, Lis,
thank you,
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.